Jump to content

Violation or not & if so, is it worth it to take action?

Recommended Posts

Here is the situation....

I have a "debt" that arose a few years ago that resulted from a dispute I had with a service provider...bottom line is, they provided services which they were instructed not to provide and, on that basis, I've consistently refused to pay. The debt is far too little for them to sue me over (although I wish they would) so the disputed issue itself has never been resolved).

About two years ago, the OC sold the debt to JDB.

JDB attempts to collect directly (on their own behalf).

I disputed (for reasons cited above) and requested validation - the JDB (not surprisingly since there is no way they can resolve the basic issue) doesn't respond in any way. I probably should have followed up with a cease communication order (C&D) based on their lack of response but I did not.

Six months later (yesterday to be exact) I receive an initial dunning letter from an independent (independent from the JDB) CA attempting to collect for the same debt which is still owned by the same JDB.

Has the JDB violated the provision against continued collection activity without validating (or some other provision I'm not thinking of)?

If so, would this one violation be worth the trouble to send an ITS and to sue if no response?

Your thoughts; please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

As you well know, it's standard practice for the owner of a debt to move a debt from one CA to another after you've DV'd said CA. And that appears to be within the law.

However, that's not your situation. The JDB, who is subject to the FDCPA, and bound by the restriction to cease collection activity if the debtor DV's timely, has sicced a CA on you after your DV to them directly. IMHO, that's a violation of the FDCPA.

However, not being as litigiously aggressive as some, I wouldn't send an ITS. Not exactly.

I would do this. YMMV.

I would write 2 letters, one to the CA, one to the JDB. In each I would outline the nature of the dispute, describe how the JDB has violated the FDCPA by hiring the CA, and direct them to Cease Communication as a result. In the letter to the JDB I would add that should they turn to the courts, you will countersue for this FDCPA violation.

Then, of course, if they violate the Cease Communication order (which I think would include siccing another CA on you) you have a slam-dunk win in court for the violation.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go with the C&D as well. Since it matters not what impact this may have on your credit score, I doubt you really care whether it remains on your report. What does matter is that they stop bothering you, right?

But, as DH said, it would be tempting to nail them for a few bucks for violating the C&D, if that opportunity arose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert!!

Yes, its continued collection activity. This is exactly what LVNV does and why I tell posters to DV them directly instead of their hired gun CA's. You did the right thing by DVing the JDB right off to bat. Since they didn't reply and waited, then sent it on to another independent CA they are liable. However, the CA they hired is not as they probably do not know about your initial DV to the JDB.

Yep, follow up with a CMRR to the JDB including a copy of your original DV to them and a copy of the CA dunning letter and tell em point blank that this was continued collection activity and now this new letter serves to tell them you are now invoking a Full Cease Communication with them as per the FDCPA and remind them to include the hired CA. 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with previous posters you should send a well written C&D that includes the JDB, its hired guns, affiliates, associates, successors, etc.

I sent a C&D letter to a JDB a long time ago. They hired a CA that sent me a dunning letter, so I sent a timely DV and they replied with a copy of my letters to the JDB, including the C&D... Right after that, JDB hired another CA that started calling me everyday using one of those automated dialers with a computerized message. I keep a detailed log of all the calls and copies of the messages left.

My theory is that under FDCPA, JDB is liable for any damages resulting from their noncompliance. So, the first CA is liable to me for violating the C&D. The second CA is also liable for violating the C&D and for using those automated dialers in violation of TCPA for which each call carries $500 - $1,500 in damages.

Maybe I am wrong, but it looks like the JDB is going to pay a lot more than the minimum $1,000 in statutory damages and all thanks to a C&D letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have had a similar experience. When I finally sent an ITS (with a draft of the lawsuit outlining what I had against them), they folded and sent me a letter stating that they were closing this account and removing it from my CR. :mrgreen:

Sometimes the STICK works better! 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is getting entertaining!

I'm in the process of preparing a good letter to tell the CA what to go do with themselves and and a letter to the current creditor effectively telling them the same thing and what I will do to them if they insist on their continued collection activity.

This morning, I get a call from this Bozo CA telling me they need to verify my address so that they can send me "refusal to pay papers".

Now keep in mind, both the current creditor and this CA have already sent me correspondence so the idea that they need to verify my address is ridiculous on its face.

Moving on, after I got done laughing in the cube dweller's ear, I advised him to seek real employment somewhere and hung up.

I almost hate to quash this as calls like that really put a spring in my step for the rest of the day!


Link to comment
Share on other sites


But to answer your original question, I don't think it's illegal to pass on the debt to another CA if the first one hasn't sent you debt validation.

But yeah, just send them another CD letter.

I think you misunderstand. :)

If the first CA was just a CA acting on behalf of the OC (or a subsequent creditor), then you would be right. However, in this case, the fist CA wasn't just a CA; the first CA was and still is the current creditor (they purchased it from the OC).

Since the current creditor is not the original creditor and since they purchased the account after it became "delinquent"; the FDCPA applies to them meaning they've engaged in continued collection activity (by sending the account to a CA) based on the fact that they sent me an initial dunning letter to which I sent a timely Dispute/validation request to which they have never responded.

Agreed, the current CA has not violated anything but it appears to me that the current creditor has.

At least; that's how I, and I think others, are interrupting the statutes.

So, my plan is to send a cease communication order to the current CA and to also send a cease communication order to the current creditor with a "reminder" that they were properly and timely sent a Dispute/Validation request to which they never responded and have engaged in continued collection activity so as to put them on notice that my number 11 boot is getting ready to be shoved up places they probably wouldn't like. :)

However, if you think my take on the situation is incorrect; please advise. :) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.